On 7 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the EU issued its decision in the Berlin Chemie A. Menarini SRL case (C-333/20). This concerns another judgment in a series of cases on the notion fixed establishment for VAT purposes.
The Court of Justice had to assess whether a company, in order to be regarded as having a fixed establishment in the Member State in which it carries out supplies, it is necessary for the human and technical resources employed by that company in the territory of that Member State to belong to it. Or, is it sufficient for that company to have “immediate and permanent access” to such human and technical recourses through another affiliated company which it controls since it holds the majority of its shares?
Source EY
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Comments on ECJ C-121/24: Non-payment of declared VAT does not constitute VAT fraud
- European Parliament Approves Simplifications to Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
- Comments on ECJ C-472/24: In-game gold: AG Kokott’s advice on VAT exemption, vouchers & margin scheme
- AG Kokott’s Opinion: VAT Exemption, Vouchers, and Margin Scheme for In-Game Gold Trading
- EU Reaches Agreement on 2028 Customs Reform
